JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. With the help of this revision, made under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners, who are accused in Complaint Case No. 480C of 2003, have put to challenge the order, dated 12.02.2004, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh, taking cognizance of offence under Sections 500/ 501B IPC and directing issuance of processes accordingly against the accused-petitioners. I have heard Mr. NC Das, learned Senior counsel for the accused-petitioners. None has appeared on behalf of the opposite party. 2. The complaint, in question, has arisen out of a news item, which was published in Assamese daily, which is run under the name and style of 'Asomiya Pratidin'. The news item, which the said newspaper had published on 19.11.2003, was against the complainant, who was, at the relevant point of time, Superintendent of Police, Dibrugarh. When the said district was passing through communal disturbance, the newspaper, in question, reported as under: Now there are allegations that Satyen Singh, thanks to his proximity to Ghatowar working for the cause of non-Assamese officers, is making inflammatory comments after failing to control the explosive situation in Duliajan. According to these allegations, this police officer close to Ghatowar, while in Duliajan today morning to review the security measures for the Hindi speaking populace there, made the controversial statement-"the situation will cool down as soon as you shoot two-three Assamese people". The SP even directed the officer-in-charge of Duliajan Police Station to take stern steps in this regard. As a result, the situation in Duliajan grew complicated today. 3. Alleging that the above information, which had been conveyed by the newspaper, in question, to the people, in general, and to its readers, in particular, were wholly false and cannot be regarded as a fair comment and that the imputation, contained in the news item, were intended to harm the reputation of the complainant, complainant has lodged the complaint, in question, against the three accused-petitioners, who are the Proprietor, Editor, Printer and Publisher of the said newspaper. 4. Having examined the complainant, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh, passed an order, dated 12.2.2004, taking cognizance of offences under Sections 500 and 501 IPC and directing issuance of processes against the accused-petitioners. 4. Having examined the complainant, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh, passed an order, dated 12.2.2004, taking cognizance of offences under Sections 500 and 501 IPC and directing issuance of processes against the accused-petitioners. Aggrieved by the order, dated 12.02.2004, aforementioned, the petitioners, as mentioned above, are, now, before this Court seeking, with the help of this application, made under Section 482 Cr.P.C., not only the order, dated 12.02.2004, to be set aside and quashed, but also the complaint, as a whole, to be set aside and quashed. 5. While considering the present application made under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it needs to be noted that the law, with regard to quashing of criminal complaint, is no longer res integra. A catena of judicial decisions has settled the position of law on this aspect of the matter. I may refer to the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab ( AIR 1960 SC 866 ), wherein the question, which arose for consideration, was whether a first information report can be quashed under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court held, on the facts before it, that no case for quashing of the proceeding was made out. Gajendragadkar, J, speaking for the Court, observed that though, ordinarily, criminal proceedings, instituted against an accused, must be tried under the provisions of the Code, there are some categories of cases, where the inherent jurisdiction of the Court can and should be exercised for quashing the proceedings. One such category, according to the Court, in R.P. Kapur (supra), consists of cases, where the allegations in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; in such cases, no question of appreciating evidence arises and it is a matter merely of looking at the FIR or the complaint in order to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not. In such cases, said the Court, it would be legitimate for the High Court to hold that it would be manifestly unjust to allow the process of the criminal Court to be issued against the accused. In such cases, said the Court, it would be legitimate for the High Court to hold that it would be manifestly unjust to allow the process of the criminal Court to be issued against the accused. From the case of R.P. Kapoor (supra), it becomes abundantly clear that when a look into the contents of a complaint shows that the contents of the complaint, even if taken at their face value and accepted to be true in their entirety, do not disclose commission of offence, the complaint shall be quashed. Similarly, where an FIR does not disclose commission of an offence, the FIR has got to be quashed. 6. As a corollary to what has been discussed above, it is also clear that if the contents of the complaint disclose commission of offence, such a complaint cannot be, ordinarily, quashed nor can an FIR be, ordinarily, quashed if the FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence. 7. Laying down the scope of interference by the High Court in matters of quashing of FIR or complaint, the Supreme Court, in State of Haryana & Ors. V. Bhajanlal & Ors., reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, laid down as follows:- 102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code, which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration, wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of the any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines of rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases, wherein such power should be exercised :- (1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirely, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where the allegation in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned act (under which criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance of the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal private grudge. 8. In the case of Bhajanlal (supra), the Supreme Court gave a note of caution, on the powers of quashing of criminal proceedings, in the following words :- 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extra ordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice. (Emphasis is added). 9. (Emphasis is added). 9. It is clear from a close reading of the principles laid down, in the case of R.P. Kapoor (supra) and Bhajanlal (supra), that broadly speaking, quashing of a First Information Report or a complaint is possible (a) when the allegations made, in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirely as true, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (b) when the uncontroverted allegations, made in the FIR or complaint and evidence collected in support of the same, do not disclose the commission of any offence and/or make out a case against the accused; and (c) when the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of such absurd and inherently improbable allegations, no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 10. In other words, when the allegations, made in an FIR, disclose commission of a cognizable offence, such an FIR cannot, ordinarily, be quashed by relying upon some other materials on which will depend the defence of the accused, for, in such cases, truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations contained in the FIR or the probability of the defence plea can be determined only by effective investigation or at the trial. 11. However, in Harshendra Kumar D. Vs. Rebatilata Kiley & Ors., reported in (2011) 3 SCC 351 , the Supreme Court has made it clear that it is not an absolute rule of law that the High Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., or, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C., cannot, under any circumstances, look into the nature of public document or such materials, which are beyond suspicion or doubt, in order to ascertain if the criminal prosecution should or should not be allowed to proceed. In fact, the Supreme Court has also made it clear, in Harshendra Kumar D. (supra) that no greater damage can be done to the reputation of a person than dragging him in a criminal case. In fact, the Supreme Court has also made it clear, in Harshendra Kumar D. (supra) that no greater damage can be done to the reputation of a person than dragging him in a criminal case. The Supreme Court has, therefore, held, in Harshendra Kumar D. (supra), that the High Court fell into grave error in not taking into consideration the uncontroverted documents relating to the appellant's resignation from the post of director of the company, which, if looked into, would have made it clear that the appellant's resignation from the post of director of the company was much before the cheques had been issued by the company. The relevant observations, which appear, in this regard, at paragraph 25 and 26, in Harshendra Kumar D. (supra), read as under: 25. In our judgment, the above observations cannot be read to mean that in a criminal case where trial is yet to take place and the matter is at the stage of issuance of summons or taking cognizance, materials relied upon by the accused, which are in the nature of public documents or the materials which are beyond suspension or doubt, in no circumstance, can be looked into by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 or for that matter in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code. It is fairly settled now that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 or revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code in a case where complaint is sought to be quashed, it is not proper for the High Court to consider the defence of the accused or embark upon an inquiry in respect of merits of the accusations. However, in an appropriate case, if on the face of the documents-which are beyond suspension or doubt-placed by the accused, the accusations against him cannot stand, it would be travesty of justice if the accused is relegated to trial and he is asked to prove his defence before the trial court. In such a matter, for promotion of justice or to prevent injustice or abuse of process, the High Court may look into the materials which have significant bearing on the matter at prima facie stage. 26. Criminal prosecution is a serious matter; it affects the liberty of a person. In such a matter, for promotion of justice or to prevent injustice or abuse of process, the High Court may look into the materials which have significant bearing on the matter at prima facie stage. 26. Criminal prosecution is a serious matter; it affects the liberty of a person. No greater damage can be done to the reputation of a person than dragging him in a criminal case. In our opinion, the High Court fell into grave error in not taking into consideration the uncontroverted documents relating to the appellant's resignation from the post of Director of the Company. Had these documents been considered by the High Court, it would have been apparent that the appellant has resigned much before the cheques were issued by the Company. (Emphasis is supplied) 12. From the law laid down in Harshendra Kumar D. (supra), it becomes clear that when the High Court is approached for quashing of a criminal prosecution in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., or in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C., the High Court has to bear in mind that criminal prosecution affects the liberty of a person and there can be no greater damage done to the reputation of a person than dragging him in a criminal case. There is, therefore, no absolute bar, on the High Court's power, to take into consideration any uncontroverted document, which may have come on record, for the purpose of arriving at a decision as to whether a criminal prosecution should or should not be allowed to continue and, if the Court, on the basis of any public or uncontroverted document, comes to the conclusion that allowing the criminal prosecution to proceed, in such a case, would amount to abuse of the process of the Court, the High Court has the duty to quash such a proceeding. 13. It is, no doubt, true that while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., or its revisional jurisdiction, under Section 397 Cr.P.C., where a complaint or FIR is sought to be quashed, it is not proper, on the part of the High Court, to consider the defence of the accused or enquire into the correctness or veracity of the accusations made against the accused. Nonetheless, in appropriate cases, if, in the face of the documents placed by the accused, which are beyond suspicion or doubt, the accusations against the accused cannot stand, it would be travesty of justice if the accused is asked to face trial, for, if it is so done, it would amount to denial of justice and would be tantamount to preventing justice from being done. This would be nothing short of abuse of the process of the Court. 14. Coupled with the above, there is no doubt that an FIR or a complaint may be quashed if the same is found to be actuated by mala fide (See. Hira Lal & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2009) 11 SCC 89 ) or if the FIR or the complaint makes accusations, which are so absurd or inherently improbable that no reasonable man would accept the allegations, made in the FIR or the complaint, as the case may be, as true and/or in a case, where the FIR and/or the complaint, as the case may be, is lodged as a counterblast. (See. MN Ojha & Ors. Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastav & Ors., reported in (2009) 9 SCC 682 ). The FIR or a complaint may even be quashed, when the same is used as a weapon of harassment or persecution (See. State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy, ( AIR 1977 SC 1489 ); but an FIR or a complaint shall be quashed, as held in Bhajanlal (supra), very sparingly and with great circumspection and that too, in the rarest of rare cases. 15. State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy, ( AIR 1977 SC 1489 ); but an FIR or a complaint shall be quashed, as held in Bhajanlal (supra), very sparingly and with great circumspection and that too, in the rarest of rare cases. 15. Considering the feet that the news item, as reproduced above, attributes a statement, which had allegedly been made against the complainant, and the statement, so reported, would clearly impair and harm the reputation of the complainant, as a police officer, it logically follows that in the face of the allegations, which have been made against the complainant and the truth whereof the complainant denies, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the contents of the complaint did make out a prima facie case for taking of cognizance under Section 501 IPC inasmuch as Section 499 IPC lays down that whoever, by words, either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said to defame the person concerning whom such imputation was made or published, except when the imputation is true and is required to be made in public good or if the imputation relates to public conduct of a public servant provided that such imputation is expressed in good faith, or when the imputation relates to conduct of any person touching any public question provided that the imputation is made in good faith or when the imputation relates to publication of reports of proceedings of Courts or when the imputation relates to merits of the case decided in Court or conduct of witnesses and others concerned. 16. Considering the fact that the imputations, as reproduced above, are, prima facie, defamatory in nature unless the accused petitioner can prove that the imputations, so published against the accused-petitioner, fall under any of the exceptions to Section 499 IPC. In order to determine if the accused-petitioner's act or conduct falls within the exceptions, provided to Section 499 IPC, a trial is imperative, because it is in the trial that the truth or otherwise of the imputation, made against the complainant, can be determined. 17. In order to determine if the accused-petitioner's act or conduct falls within the exceptions, provided to Section 499 IPC, a trial is imperative, because it is in the trial that the truth or otherwise of the imputation, made against the complainant, can be determined. 17. In view of the fact that the contents of the complaint, in question, disclose commission of offence under Section 501 IPC, such a complaint cannot be quashed, though it would remain open to the parties concerned to compound the offence in terms of the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. 18. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, this revision does not succeed. The impugned order, dated 12.2.2004, and also the complaint, in question, are maintained and this criminal revision petition is hereby dismissed. Send back the LCR. Petition dismissed